NickTrop
Veteran
One of the things that impresses me with the posts here are how nicely done most every scan is. Everyone really seems to capture the dreamy, painterly, film-y quality of their shots. What are youse ; ) all using to scan? Any techniques you're willing to share?
Reason I ask is I recently dug my scanner out of mothballs. I used to use a digital for 6x4 color, and shot 6x6 MF and printed my BW 6X6 traditionally with an enlarger but did experiment with scans and inkjet prints. Recently, I'm shooting a lot more 35 black and white, have given up on digital... But I take far too many 35mm pics to print in a traditional darkroom. My thought was that I can print 6x4's or 5x7's when shooting 135 and just scan them and use an inkjet and print most of my 6x6 stuff traditionally.
Here's what I've been experimenting with:
- Epson Perfection 3170 flatbed scanner (not the best but will do for now, has a MF negative holder along with the 35 and an "alleged" dynamic range of 3.7.)
- Vuescan software
- HP 8450 photoprinter (has that gray cartridge for black and whites). Fairly new, ditched my Epsons because I had difficulty on two occasions getting them to read the MIS carts and the print heads clog too often. Haven't printed anything yet. Still tweeking my first set of experimental 6x6 scans.
- Ilford Galerie Pearl Paper (again, heard it works well with the HPs and it's not icky-sticky glossy for black and white...) Again, haven't made any prints yet with the new printer. Still futzing around with the scans.
- Adobe Lightroom (Only one that can read the Vuescan raw files)
-------
Any tips or thoughts you care to share about Vuescan, scanning techniques, whatever would be appreciated.
Reason I ask is I recently dug my scanner out of mothballs. I used to use a digital for 6x4 color, and shot 6x6 MF and printed my BW 6X6 traditionally with an enlarger but did experiment with scans and inkjet prints. Recently, I'm shooting a lot more 35 black and white, have given up on digital... But I take far too many 35mm pics to print in a traditional darkroom. My thought was that I can print 6x4's or 5x7's when shooting 135 and just scan them and use an inkjet and print most of my 6x6 stuff traditionally.
Here's what I've been experimenting with:
- Epson Perfection 3170 flatbed scanner (not the best but will do for now, has a MF negative holder along with the 35 and an "alleged" dynamic range of 3.7.)
- Vuescan software
- HP 8450 photoprinter (has that gray cartridge for black and whites). Fairly new, ditched my Epsons because I had difficulty on two occasions getting them to read the MIS carts and the print heads clog too often. Haven't printed anything yet. Still tweeking my first set of experimental 6x6 scans.
- Ilford Galerie Pearl Paper (again, heard it works well with the HPs and it's not icky-sticky glossy for black and white...) Again, haven't made any prints yet with the new printer. Still futzing around with the scans.
- Adobe Lightroom (Only one that can read the Vuescan raw files)
-------
Any tips or thoughts you care to share about Vuescan, scanning techniques, whatever would be appreciated.
iml
Well-known
For 35mm I scan b&w as 16-bit grayscale positives, 2400 or 4800 ppi depending on whether I'm aiming to make a very large print, all scan software sharpening and other options turned off, invert in PS Elements 4, apply a bit of levels adjustment and USM, and save as TIFF. For the web, I resize to about 600 pixels on the long side, add a 20 pixel border, and use Save For Web in PS Elements to create a 72 ppi JPEG, max or high quality.
For 6x6 I scan in 16-bit grayscale at 2400 ppi, and then it's the same as above.
I use an Epson V700 flatbed for the scanning, and print on an Epson R1800 onto Ilford Smooth Pearl or Harman FB Matt using Quad Tone RIP:
http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRoverview.html
Using this software and experimenting with the various curves it offers has given me really impressive b&w prints, much better than with the standard Epson driver. I generally blend a cool and sepia curve, with an 80% preference towards the cool, and this seems to mostly give a very classic looking b&w print. It took me about a day of experimentation and 50 sheets of paper to nail the settings, but it was worth the effort.
All my colour (there's not too much of it) is shot digitally and printed using the standard Epson printer driver on Ilford Smooth Pearl. The default Epson settings work fine for me.
My scanning regime is the result of a lot of experimentation too, it may not be the best approach for everyone but it usually gives me the result I had in mind when I made the shot.
I think I've now reached the point where the prints I'm making are far better than any print I could make in a traditional darkroom. Mind you, I was never very good at wet printing!
Ian
For 6x6 I scan in 16-bit grayscale at 2400 ppi, and then it's the same as above.
I use an Epson V700 flatbed for the scanning, and print on an Epson R1800 onto Ilford Smooth Pearl or Harman FB Matt using Quad Tone RIP:
http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRoverview.html
Using this software and experimenting with the various curves it offers has given me really impressive b&w prints, much better than with the standard Epson driver. I generally blend a cool and sepia curve, with an 80% preference towards the cool, and this seems to mostly give a very classic looking b&w print. It took me about a day of experimentation and 50 sheets of paper to nail the settings, but it was worth the effort.
All my colour (there's not too much of it) is shot digitally and printed using the standard Epson printer driver on Ilford Smooth Pearl. The default Epson settings work fine for me.
My scanning regime is the result of a lot of experimentation too, it may not be the best approach for everyone but it usually gives me the result I had in mind when I made the shot.
I think I've now reached the point where the prints I'm making are far better than any print I could make in a traditional darkroom. Mind you, I was never very good at wet printing!
Ian
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
Thanks so much for this post, iml. I know I'm in for a lot of experimentation. I haven't fooled with RIPs yet. I know I'm in for a lot of experimentation and going through a lot of paper, etc. But I also know/have seen very good inkjet prints though I can't say my initial attempts were up to par. I think using the Ilford paper pearl paper will help a lot.
Great info. Thanks again.
Great info. Thanks again.
R
RML
Guest
For 135 film I'd suggest you get a dedicated negative scanner.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i also have the epson v700 and i also scan BW in 16-bit mode. I scan with NO tonecurve adjustments, i do all the adjustments at 16 bit in photoshop CS 3, the beta version
at this moment.
However i scan as bw negative most of the time, sometimes if it is a really difficult one, i try as a positive too, in some cases it seems to get me better results, but i can't figure ot when and why.
Sometimes i do apply a bit of USM, on the lowest level, while scanning. Usually when i forget to turn it off
I save it as 16-bit full size tiff, 2400 or 1200 dpi, and then make a small jpeg version of it in 8-bit, sometimes with a colour tint.
Depends also on the raw material. Some film scans very difficult, some scans with high contrast, some with low, some have pronounced grain like neopan1600 does (my last scanning).
at this moment.However i scan as bw negative most of the time, sometimes if it is a really difficult one, i try as a positive too, in some cases it seems to get me better results, but i can't figure ot when and why.
Sometimes i do apply a bit of USM, on the lowest level, while scanning. Usually when i forget to turn it off
I save it as 16-bit full size tiff, 2400 or 1200 dpi, and then make a small jpeg version of it in 8-bit, sometimes with a colour tint.
Depends also on the raw material. Some film scans very difficult, some scans with high contrast, some with low, some have pronounced grain like neopan1600 does (my last scanning).
V
varjag
Guest
I second that.RML said:
mfogiel
Veteran
I use Epson V750 for contact sheets, and then Nikon Coolscan 9000 for scanning @ 4000 ppi. I have first tried to scan my 6x6 shots with the V750, but I've given up - you lose too much quality. The only thing that turns up ok on V750 is silver B&W film, but unless you shoot 6x7 or higher , the result is not great for bigger prints. The flatbeds, in my opinion, are good for 4-6X enlargement max.
On the other hand, with the CS9000 i Have printed 13x19 B&W prints from 135mm shot on XP2, and nobody could tell them from digital, I would say, on the contrary, the digital prints in comparison sucked.
I use Vuescan, there are profiles for most films in the package already, I output 16bit grayscale and use medium ICE. I've checked various ICE settings, and medium is sufficient for decent cleaning. It is not true the quality decreases- you can only notice the intervention of ICE around the healed spots, the rest of the image is untouched.
Then I adjust Levels and Curves in Photoshop, use Noise Ninja and Photokit Sharpener as required and print on Epson R2400. I must admit, I am reasonably happy with my b&w prints, so I haven't even tried the advanced b&w mode, or a RIP. The best everyday paper, especially for b&w is Ilford Smooth Pearl, for the keepers I want to frame or make a gift of, I use Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl or Photo Rag. There are some quirks with the Epson Premium Glossy - you have to print at 180 dpi for best results - maybe this can be solved with the RIP or advanced B&W settings.
To sum up- I think the biggest favour you can do yourself if you like film, is to get the best scanner you can afford. The film cameras are getting cheaper by the hour - especially MF, so a CS9000, on an Imacon gives you a tremendous chance to extract the best quality from this equipment and make it really shine. For ugly (especially B&W) prints, there's always the digital...
On the other hand, with the CS9000 i Have printed 13x19 B&W prints from 135mm shot on XP2, and nobody could tell them from digital, I would say, on the contrary, the digital prints in comparison sucked.
I use Vuescan, there are profiles for most films in the package already, I output 16bit grayscale and use medium ICE. I've checked various ICE settings, and medium is sufficient for decent cleaning. It is not true the quality decreases- you can only notice the intervention of ICE around the healed spots, the rest of the image is untouched.
Then I adjust Levels and Curves in Photoshop, use Noise Ninja and Photokit Sharpener as required and print on Epson R2400. I must admit, I am reasonably happy with my b&w prints, so I haven't even tried the advanced b&w mode, or a RIP. The best everyday paper, especially for b&w is Ilford Smooth Pearl, for the keepers I want to frame or make a gift of, I use Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl or Photo Rag. There are some quirks with the Epson Premium Glossy - you have to print at 180 dpi for best results - maybe this can be solved with the RIP or advanced B&W settings.
To sum up- I think the biggest favour you can do yourself if you like film, is to get the best scanner you can afford. The film cameras are getting cheaper by the hour - especially MF, so a CS9000, on an Imacon gives you a tremendous chance to extract the best quality from this equipment and make it really shine. For ugly (especially B&W) prints, there's always the digital...
NickTrop
Veteran
Great stuff. Yes, I've been eyeing a film scanner. Seems the way to go.
DavidH
Overweight and over here
I use a KM5400 for all my 35mm scanning - with Silverfast Ai. I have been a Vuescan user for years but changed to Ai a year or so ago and haven't looked back - I just find it far superior for fine tuning the scan. The lower versions of Silverfast like SE I find too limiting...
The KM5400 has been fantastic - providing excellent results over the last few years - and certainly good enough for the professional side of my work.
For MF - something that I've only been trying over the last few months - I use a V700. A dedicated MF film scanner is simply too expensive for me so the V700/750 seemed a reasonable compromise. Results are very nice. Again I use Silverfast Ai - I tried the bundled epson software and grew to hate it and briefly tried Vuescan again but life is too short for such an ordeal so I paid out for an upgrade to Ai from the bundled SE.
Process-wise...I scan b&w as b&w and color as color - I've tried all the combinations and remain unconvinced about scanning b&w in color and then converting in Pshop.
Scans are tweaked to get maximum info out of the neg - so look a little flat in their 'raw' state. All are finished in CS2.
I use Noise Ninja within CS2 for some of my Pro800 shots - often just for the painterly effect.
Most of my commercial work is supplied to end client as a digital file - hence the initial move to scanning. I rarely print anything myself, gave up on inkjets a year or so ago (the running costs! damn!) and tend to stick to 3rd parties like Peak Imaging for the ones I do 'for the wall'.
For some perverse reason, I actually enjoy scanning film...which is just as well...just came back from a shoot with 400 digital shots that took 10 minutes to ingest to the Mac, back up and quickly check thru. The 500 shots on various films will take quite a lot longer...
Buy the best scanner you can afford - as suggested above...
good luck
The KM5400 has been fantastic - providing excellent results over the last few years - and certainly good enough for the professional side of my work.
For MF - something that I've only been trying over the last few months - I use a V700. A dedicated MF film scanner is simply too expensive for me so the V700/750 seemed a reasonable compromise. Results are very nice. Again I use Silverfast Ai - I tried the bundled epson software and grew to hate it and briefly tried Vuescan again but life is too short for such an ordeal so I paid out for an upgrade to Ai from the bundled SE.
Process-wise...I scan b&w as b&w and color as color - I've tried all the combinations and remain unconvinced about scanning b&w in color and then converting in Pshop.
Scans are tweaked to get maximum info out of the neg - so look a little flat in their 'raw' state. All are finished in CS2.
I use Noise Ninja within CS2 for some of my Pro800 shots - often just for the painterly effect.
Most of my commercial work is supplied to end client as a digital file - hence the initial move to scanning. I rarely print anything myself, gave up on inkjets a year or so ago (the running costs! damn!) and tend to stick to 3rd parties like Peak Imaging for the ones I do 'for the wall'.
For some perverse reason, I actually enjoy scanning film...which is just as well...just came back from a shoot with 400 digital shots that took 10 minutes to ingest to the Mac, back up and quickly check thru. The 500 shots on various films will take quite a lot longer...
Buy the best scanner you can afford - as suggested above...
good luck
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
One thing I do which serves me well is counteracting negative curve. I cut my film into 6 frame strips then roll the whole lot against the natural curl and place them in a glass tumbler for an hour or so. I then take them out one at a time for scanning and find for at least twenty minutes they sit very flat in the rather crappy V700 negative holder. I tend to scan everything in 16 bit colour with the supplied Epson software and then make adjustments afterwards in post procesing with ACDSee pro! A less is more policy seems to work best for me.
ChrisN
Striving
I just found an interesting site with some good articles about scanning and digital printing. He also has the clearest and simplest description I've read of a practical dodging and burning technique, and again, a clear description of how to test and compare various techniques using a greyscale step wedge. The author (Peter Robinson) seems to be film- and B&W-oriented. (I can't help but wonder if he's a member here - he'd fit right in.) You might find it well worth a quick read.
http://www.monopix.co.uk/scanning.shtml
http://www.monopix.co.uk/scanning.shtml
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
ChrisN said:
Thanks for that link Chris ... I just added that to my scanning folder for future reference!
Jerevan
Recycled User
This is a tutorial I've found worthwhile reading: http://oomz.net/bw_workflow/.
kshapero
South Florida Man
varjag said:
recommendations, please?
ChrisN
Striving
OK, I'll start. I have a Nikon Coolscan V, which certainly produces nicer 35mm scans than the Epson 4490, which is the only other scanner I have used.
mackigator
Well-known
Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 for 35mm neg and slide. Recommended. Routinely amazes me.
I would like to own the Epson V700 flatbed for a collection of older medium format negatives, but I'm making do with a Microtek Scanmaker 6800 (flatbed, not recommended) for now. I use Silverfast's software for the flatbed, as its an improvement over the boxed driver. For the Nikon 5000 I like the Nikon scan software just fine.
I would like to own the Epson V700 flatbed for a collection of older medium format negatives, but I'm making do with a Microtek Scanmaker 6800 (flatbed, not recommended) for now. I use Silverfast's software for the flatbed, as its an improvement over the boxed driver. For the Nikon 5000 I like the Nikon scan software just fine.
Athena
Well-known
I have been using a Nikon 5000D for the past couple of years. Although it has it's quirks and the software lacks "user friendliness" it is a great scanner.
But I've now begun shooting in MF. So I am about to migrate to the Nikon 9000D.
Oh, all my gear is Nikon, so it "runs in the family" that I favor Nikon scanners!
But I've now begun shooting in MF. So I am about to migrate to the Nikon 9000D.
Oh, all my gear is Nikon, so it "runs in the family" that I favor Nikon scanners!
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I do not scan my own.
In my opinion (I may be wrong) the Fuji Frontier machines in photo stores do it better.
The 'trick' is to find a minilab technician who has a background in photography, not burgers.
They need to increase the resolution to the max as needed for A4 size prints (could be 10x8 in non-metric countries) but not actually print to paper, instead digitize to CD.
The high res scans take longer than the normal low res scans they do all day so you can't expect 30 minute service. But if you give them time to schedule your work during their quiet times you may find them very helpful. My guy puts my uncut negs into his machine when he stops for his lunch break.
In my opinion (I may be wrong) the Fuji Frontier machines in photo stores do it better.
The 'trick' is to find a minilab technician who has a background in photography, not burgers.
They need to increase the resolution to the max as needed for A4 size prints (could be 10x8 in non-metric countries) but not actually print to paper, instead digitize to CD.
The high res scans take longer than the normal low res scans they do all day so you can't expect 30 minute service. But if you give them time to schedule your work during their quiet times you may find them very helpful. My guy puts my uncut negs into his machine when he stops for his lunch break.
Bryce
Well-known
I've had quite an experience with scanning, have tried several methods with several machines. I'll start with a list of methods/ machines and add a general impression later for each.
1. Dedicated film scanners- Minolta Scan Dual III, Nikon 4000, Imacon 828.
2. Flatbeds, used with B+W prints only. Various makes and models. Sorry, never actually tried scanning negs, slides, or color prints.
3. Digital slr with macro or enlarging lenses, to scan prints via copy stand and flashguns, or negs and slides via slide copier with a white board lit by flash for lighting.
Dedicated scanners- you get what you pay for! The $6000 (?) Imacon was quite noticeably better than the $1000 Nikon which was vastly better than the $200 Minolta. The Nikon and Imacon both yield enough shadow detail and low enough noise from slides to make decent prints, the Minolta does not. All will get the full range of tone from negatives, but noise and/ or grain aliasing is a serious problem for the Minolta and noticeable for the more expensive machines. Getting good color balance is quite difficult with any of them. None truly do a slide justice... maybe a drum scan would?
Flatbed scans of B+W prints- The best way to go that I've found. Haven't tried color, sorry. These scans do not show grain aliasing problems, but newton rings can be a problem with RC glossy prints. For best results, the print should be tailored to the process, i.e. not quite black in the shadows and not quite white in the highlights.
Digital slr and macro lens to copy B+W prints via copy stand- Within the resolution limits of the camera, this method works quite well. It is the one I use for web use, though I wouldn't print B+W's with an inkjet. Real prints are so so so much better to look at in person!
Digital slr and macro or enlarging lens to copy negs with slide copier attachment- For negatives, it works great within the resolution limits of the digicam. So not well enough to show the true grain structure of the negative, but O.K. for web use. Might also be useful for establishing which negs you might like to spend the time to print wet. This method has the advantage of being really quick once the setup is together. Color negs are quite difficult to get good color balance out of in photoshop, but that is true with all scanning methods I've tried.
Same, but for slides- Can work IF you have HDR software and shoot 3 frames of the slide. One frame exposed to capture the highlights, one for the midtones, and one for the shadows. These are then combined in the HDR software to yield the full tonal range of the slide. I've only experimented with this method recently, but initial results are better than the dedicated scanners for noise/ grain aliasing and shadow retention. Too bad the resolution is so low...
I hope this is useful.
1. Dedicated film scanners- Minolta Scan Dual III, Nikon 4000, Imacon 828.
2. Flatbeds, used with B+W prints only. Various makes and models. Sorry, never actually tried scanning negs, slides, or color prints.
3. Digital slr with macro or enlarging lenses, to scan prints via copy stand and flashguns, or negs and slides via slide copier with a white board lit by flash for lighting.
Dedicated scanners- you get what you pay for! The $6000 (?) Imacon was quite noticeably better than the $1000 Nikon which was vastly better than the $200 Minolta. The Nikon and Imacon both yield enough shadow detail and low enough noise from slides to make decent prints, the Minolta does not. All will get the full range of tone from negatives, but noise and/ or grain aliasing is a serious problem for the Minolta and noticeable for the more expensive machines. Getting good color balance is quite difficult with any of them. None truly do a slide justice... maybe a drum scan would?
Flatbed scans of B+W prints- The best way to go that I've found. Haven't tried color, sorry. These scans do not show grain aliasing problems, but newton rings can be a problem with RC glossy prints. For best results, the print should be tailored to the process, i.e. not quite black in the shadows and not quite white in the highlights.
Digital slr and macro lens to copy B+W prints via copy stand- Within the resolution limits of the camera, this method works quite well. It is the one I use for web use, though I wouldn't print B+W's with an inkjet. Real prints are so so so much better to look at in person!
Digital slr and macro or enlarging lens to copy negs with slide copier attachment- For negatives, it works great within the resolution limits of the digicam. So not well enough to show the true grain structure of the negative, but O.K. for web use. Might also be useful for establishing which negs you might like to spend the time to print wet. This method has the advantage of being really quick once the setup is together. Color negs are quite difficult to get good color balance out of in photoshop, but that is true with all scanning methods I've tried.
Same, but for slides- Can work IF you have HDR software and shoot 3 frames of the slide. One frame exposed to capture the highlights, one for the midtones, and one for the shadows. These are then combined in the HDR software to yield the full tonal range of the slide. I've only experimented with this method recently, but initial results are better than the dedicated scanners for noise/ grain aliasing and shadow retention. Too bad the resolution is so low...
I hope this is useful.
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
35 b/w negs i scan on a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED (using the latest vuescan software) as 16 BITT grayscale TIFFs @ 4000 DPI which when opened up as 16 BITT RGB's in CS2 are around 115MB. Now i have CS3 and Lightroom i will try scanning and saving as RAW to see if this offers more potential. I have found that using the optionall F-3-H film holder yields flatter scans than the supplied motorised film holder.
For web work and 120 film i use the Epsom V750 with Silverfast Ai and Doug Fisher's MF film holder with AN Glass - a big improvement over the crappy Epson OE film holder which only has 3 height settings. I'm also ordering one of Doug's large format film holders with AN Glass for my scanning my archive Polaroid Type 55 and 665 negs. Again b/w negs scanned as 16 BITT grayscale TIFFs at 4800 DPI
Archive or potential exhibition work is scanned on an Imacon 949 or 848 when i can get access.
Eventually i will look at a used Imacon 343 or 646.
For web work and 120 film i use the Epsom V750 with Silverfast Ai and Doug Fisher's MF film holder with AN Glass - a big improvement over the crappy Epson OE film holder which only has 3 height settings. I'm also ordering one of Doug's large format film holders with AN Glass for my scanning my archive Polaroid Type 55 and 665 negs. Again b/w negs scanned as 16 BITT grayscale TIFFs at 4800 DPI
Archive or potential exhibition work is scanned on an Imacon 949 or 848 when i can get access.
Eventually i will look at a used Imacon 343 or 646.